ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Tuesday, January 1, 2013
WND Laughably Honored For 'Trustworthy' News
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Nobody believes WorldNetDaily these days, so WND must take affirmations of its so-called reporting where it can get it.  Thus, we have a Dec. 31 WND article trumpeting how some website nobody's ever heard of is proclaiming WND to be "trustworthy." No, really:

An independent news organization has named the Drudge Report and WND among the “most trustworthy news sources” for 2012, citing Drudge as the “top-trusted site for millions” and WND for “continual commitment to the truth and top-notch journalistic practice.”

The list of the top news sources, where WND was second only to the Drudge Report, was announced today by the Discerning Times at, an online source that bills itself as a “Small Town Newspaper, Big Time News.”

The Christian organization said it based its decision on several factors, including the news reported “results from the fullest research possible” and that news “will be reported without favoritism.”

Other factors include an emphasis on beneficial news, the appropriate use of photographs “with due consideration for personal dignity” and that “no specific political viewpoint will be represented.”

The Discerning Times’ Thomas McGee told WND the news site’s operation consistently offers “fast, balanced, and reliable news.”

The Times noted that candidates were evaluated on reliability, accuracy, quality, balance and reach. Those factors represent concerns for “consistent, regularly updated delivery of news,” “well-rounded stories which focus upon facts rather than gossip or hearsay,” “informative, well-written pieces over sheer quantity,” “stories reported aside from bias or agenda” and “strong authority and readership.”

“With a continual commitment to the truth and top-notch journalistic practices, WorldNetDaily has time and again exposed corruption in the media and politics while maintaining good journalistic practices,” the evaluation concluded. “WND clearly differentiates when they’re reporting news and providing commentary or opinion.”

Not only does the Discerning Times, aka Enumclaw, appear to be not terribly discerning, they apparently have never read WND.

WND maintains "good journalistic practices"? Really? If it was, it would have reported that Jerome Corsi's birther conspiracies have been repeatedly discredited. But it hasn't.

"Continual commitment to the truth"? When WND's own editor can't stop telling lies, you know what a wildly inaccurate statement that is.

"Differentiates when they’re reporting news and providing commentary or opinion"? When you're reporting only one side of a story, as WND frequently does, isn't that the same as erasing the dividing line between news and opinion?

Then again, the Discerning Times also has an article its website asking the question "Is Starbucks A Cult?" So, yeah, not exactly the most qualified to determine the trustworthiness of news sources.

Posted by Terry K. at 4:43 PM EST

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« January 2013 »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google